Talk:John Marston (Red Dead)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 15:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Reviewed revision (as of 06:38, 9 May 2020)

I'll take the initiative and get this one to you to get the ball rolling on your current GTN. This is quite a brief article, but current consensus has been established that it meets WP:GNG after an AFD proposal in 2018 (result was keep).

I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria upfront. It is well-written and covers the topic, makes use of WP:RS with properly formatted citations, and the non-free image has an adequate FUR. I spot-checked a couple of interviews/previews and I agf on the others.

As per usual, I'd like to make suggestions to improve the page that are out of the review scope and I'd please ask that you consider these in your own time.

• The lead summarises plot from RDR1, but John is a "current" Van der Linde member in RDR2. Perhaps you could tweak/simplify (or expand) to cover his role in both games.
• It'd be nice if the character development section was more comprehensive, but I don't know if the sourcing is there to do that.
• You could source the biography section using Template:Cite video game with references to specific levels/missions (admittedly not necessary, but just an idea).
• The Reception section could be structured better. Perhaps you could try either synthesising commentary about John in both games together, or keep them strictly separate. At the moment however, in the last sentence of the first paragraph, a reviewer draws a parallel between Arthur and John, and yet this is revisited by other reviewers in the second paragraph. Whatever approach you decide to take, this commentary should be kept together so that this section flows better.
• Was there any commentary about John's role in Undead Nightmare worth mentioning?
• I could nitpick pockets of prose here and there if we're holding it to a higher standard than we need to, however there's no GA-related concerns here and I might do some minor tweaks myself.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well done! I'm passing this upfront, but please consider my out-of-scope comments above. Thanks! — CR4ZE (t • c) 15:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)